To the north, the voters defy history

Page Tools

So far, Indonesia and East Timor are beating the odds and pursuing democracy, writes Peter Hartcher.

In the hot tropical night this week, in the East Timor town of Maliana, where Indonesia is so close you can see it, a deep rhythmic singing rises and falls, hour after hour. In the same town five years ago the night was rent with screams as the Indonesian-sponsored militias butchered about 250 of the town's people, their goodbye present for a population who dared to vote to be free after 24 years of Indonesian occupation.

But now there is the singing of the local men as they rehearse for the celebrations of the second anniversary yesterday of formal independence in the world's newest nation. When the town's electricity is switched off at midnight, as it is every night to conserve precious energy, the men are not deterred. They raise their voices in an ironic cheer before they resume singing.

Independence and democracy have not solved East Timor's many serious problems. East Timor, colonised by the Portuguese and then seized by Indonesia, spent 400 years in a labour camp and a quarter-century in a concentration camp.

Nor have independence and democracy solved the problems of Indonesia. To use another oversimplification, Indonesia, colonised by the Dutch and then seized by Soeharto, spent three centuries in a plantation and 30 years in a police state.

Democratic self-rule in Indonesia and East Timor is built on these politically repressive and socially ruinous foundations. It was abruptly available to both countries because of the same event - the fall of Soeharto.

Yet as the US-led effort to impose democracy in Iraq continues amid bloodshed and hatred, the experience in East Timor and Indonesia is a fascinating counterpoint in experimental democracy and nation-building.

What is the state of democratic development in these two countries, neighbours of Australia and countries where Australia has deep national interests? It's an opportune moment to ask: Indonesia holds the first round of its presidential elections on July 5 and East Timor celebrated two years of independence yesterday.

In Indonesia's case, the repository of the darkest fears and suspicions of the Australian psyche, many have long argued that democracy cannot work. And they may yet be vindicated.

The two most common scenarios for the failure of democracy in Indonesia are that the generals will grab power once more, or that a strident new Islamism will take hold and Indonesia will become an Islamic state. But five years after the country's first fair and free election since its brief skirmish with democracy in the 1950s, there is good news.

First, consider the evidence of the parliamentary elections on April 5, a precursor to the presidential elections. Indonesians seemed to appreciate the opportunity to exercise their new-won right - 87 per cent of voters turned out, a much higher ratio than in most countries with optional voting. Voter turnout in the country most aggressively insisting on democracy in other countries, the US, was 50 per cent.

Some Indonesian voters turned out because they were paid to do so by political parties, but with 128 million people showing up it was overwhelmingly an indication of public interest and civic responsibility.

The patterns of voting, too, were revealing. There is widespread disappointment in Indonesia with the country's vacuous do-nothing President, Megawati Soekarnoputri. Her party was punished, and lost about 40 per cent of the support it had won at the previous election. These disenchanted voters were expected to revert to Soeharto's party in a fit of nostalgia. After all, the disenchanted in post-Communist countries of Eastern Europe have commonly flocked back to the Communist Party.

But voters were more discerning and more adventurous. Most of the vote that deserted Megawati went to two new parties, one a moderate Islamic party and the other the party of the former general who now leads the race for the presidency, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, or SBY.

Second, look at the presidential candidates. There are six, each with a vice-president on his or her ticket, a total of 12 on the slate. Of these, three are former generals. Another six are former or present leaders of one of the two big Islamic groups in Indonesia.

This is a deeply important development. The generals are not waiting for democracy to fail so that they can stage a coup, but are openly competing in the democratic process. The Islamic leaders are not repudiating the secular state, but actively competing in a democratic process for the power to run it.

All the competitors, in short, acknowledge the national consensus that there is only one legitimate route to power - through the ballot box.

The third fascinating facet of Indonesian democracy is that after five years, the country recognises that democracy is not enough. The consensus is that Indonesia also needs good governance. The campaign platforms of all six candidates are heavily dependent on the twin planks of fighting corruption, and generating economic growth. Listen to the Bush Administration's aspirations for Iraq and you will hear democracy and liberty cited. You will almost never hear a wish for good governance. Yet the Indonesian political system explicitly recognises it is indispensable to a functional state.

East Timor has started its democratic experiment with far less experience of politics and with far fewer resources than even hard-scrabble Indonesia. East Timorese subsist with an average income equal to the international poverty line of one dollar a day, with a fifth of the people living on even less.

Yet after just two years of independence, it has an elected parliament, a functional executive branch, a bureaucracy of sorts, and has legislated for all the institutions necessary to run the country. It has now to give those institutions form and real function. Again, good governance is a phrase much in use in Dili these days.

Indonesian democracy was born of violent upheaval and mass killing, and so was East Timor's independence. Even with unpromising histories, bloody births and economic suffering, both countries are making real progress in making democracy work